An here is Ben Hopkinson again on another blog, busy person ;)
I live at the southern edge of Greater London, bounded by the first (unofficial) green belt, the lands bought by the City of London corporation on the North Downs back in the 1880s when they had the foresight to see, whilst they were stimulating (and financing) massive rail expansion and the housing to go alongside it, that they needed to buy and protect the land at the edge of the hills to prevent lter building.
This area (Purley and south) had been a massive house building success in recent years under opening up of planning restrictions by Croydon council (yes, they had some successes). In an area with many (typically) 1930s or old individual homes (including bungalows), many of which with only one or two older retired folk living in them, the council allowed developers to buy those plots for development land value (typically more than the house on the land), then put (typically) 6-9 flats of various sizes. This was replicated literally hundreds of times (and yes, quite a lot of NIMBY objections filed to applications), with the result that this area exceeded housing targets and yes, house prices for housing units of that size have not increased like they have in the rest of London.
In the 'burbs, then, giving permission to increase density on existing built streets is one more way to go.
Thanks, great to hear you mention Purley, as it was actually a subject of some data work that John Burn-Murdoch at the FT did. https://www.ft.com/content/de34dfc7-c506-4a81-b63d-41d994efaa89 building rates in Croydon skyrocketed in the late 2010s, and as a result real house prices were much more affordable in the borough than the rest of London. The only problem was the reforms that Croydon made were overturned because of NIMBY backlash, so we will have to figure out how to replicate that success without so much backlash, which is why I think building on some well-connected areas of the green belt and SIL land may be less likely to arouse such anger. Although I'm also keen to see suburban intensification pursued, like the successes in Croydon.
Much of the NIMBY backlash was linked more to the reputation, poor communication and behaviour of the past Croydon Council, with accusations of cronyism between developers and planners and very little public communication. In addition, the amount of such growth will have put pressure on schools, GPs and other infrastucture yet the bankrupt state of finances with Croydon council means little has been done to impact this despite the housing growth.
All that said, though, this area was a major success story in terms of such small developments to create (sub)urban densification and thank you for flagging that great article by John Burn-Murdoch.
Another element I'd add is the need to radically transform how we tax property. If we were to see such a shift (as Dan Neidle, Paul Johnson and others are talking about at different levels), this would accelerate suburban densification.
Imagine if we a) abolish stamp duty and also council tax, b) replace them with property taxes, then perhaps c) put a reasonable tax on developers for impact and ringfence that for new infrastructure to support additional population growth.
I imagine this would accelerate supply of land (eg from widows/widowers with houses on large plots now incentivised to downsize), and we all know the demand is strong
Do you think there's scope for pushing for the current NPPF changes to include land near train stations in their definition of Grey Belt?
I suggested this in my response to the consultation (and plan to write to my MP). It seems like it would be both quick and incredibly useful, but I haven't seen anyone else suggest that as the legal mechanism. Do you have a view on whether that could happen?
So the NPPF changes that are currently being consulted on does mention building on land near train stations that's currently green belt. However the issue is that this is only mentioned as a low priority. To build near stations on the green belt, local authorities are meant to first build on any brownfield land, then build on any 'previously developed' green belt land, then they can consider building around stations in the green belt. In my response to the consultation I'm suggesting that they prioritise well-connected green belt land over previously developed land, as the status of whether land was previously developed doesn't have any relation to how economically beneficial it is to build on.
So I guess to answer your question, I think that the NPPF, if worded well, could be the mechanism to make it much easier to build on green belt land near stations, although I'm not optimistic that the current changes being consulted on go far enough.
An here is Ben Hopkinson again on another blog, busy person ;)
I live at the southern edge of Greater London, bounded by the first (unofficial) green belt, the lands bought by the City of London corporation on the North Downs back in the 1880s when they had the foresight to see, whilst they were stimulating (and financing) massive rail expansion and the housing to go alongside it, that they needed to buy and protect the land at the edge of the hills to prevent lter building.
This area (Purley and south) had been a massive house building success in recent years under opening up of planning restrictions by Croydon council (yes, they had some successes). In an area with many (typically) 1930s or old individual homes (including bungalows), many of which with only one or two older retired folk living in them, the council allowed developers to buy those plots for development land value (typically more than the house on the land), then put (typically) 6-9 flats of various sizes. This was replicated literally hundreds of times (and yes, quite a lot of NIMBY objections filed to applications), with the result that this area exceeded housing targets and yes, house prices for housing units of that size have not increased like they have in the rest of London.
In the 'burbs, then, giving permission to increase density on existing built streets is one more way to go.
Thanks, great to hear you mention Purley, as it was actually a subject of some data work that John Burn-Murdoch at the FT did. https://www.ft.com/content/de34dfc7-c506-4a81-b63d-41d994efaa89 building rates in Croydon skyrocketed in the late 2010s, and as a result real house prices were much more affordable in the borough than the rest of London. The only problem was the reforms that Croydon made were overturned because of NIMBY backlash, so we will have to figure out how to replicate that success without so much backlash, which is why I think building on some well-connected areas of the green belt and SIL land may be less likely to arouse such anger. Although I'm also keen to see suburban intensification pursued, like the successes in Croydon.
Much of the NIMBY backlash was linked more to the reputation, poor communication and behaviour of the past Croydon Council, with accusations of cronyism between developers and planners and very little public communication. In addition, the amount of such growth will have put pressure on schools, GPs and other infrastucture yet the bankrupt state of finances with Croydon council means little has been done to impact this despite the housing growth.
All that said, though, this area was a major success story in terms of such small developments to create (sub)urban densification and thank you for flagging that great article by John Burn-Murdoch.
Another element I'd add is the need to radically transform how we tax property. If we were to see such a shift (as Dan Neidle, Paul Johnson and others are talking about at different levels), this would accelerate suburban densification.
Imagine if we a) abolish stamp duty and also council tax, b) replace them with property taxes, then perhaps c) put a reasonable tax on developers for impact and ringfence that for new infrastructure to support additional population growth.
I imagine this would accelerate supply of land (eg from widows/widowers with houses on large plots now incentivised to downsize), and we all know the demand is strong
Do you think there's scope for pushing for the current NPPF changes to include land near train stations in their definition of Grey Belt?
I suggested this in my response to the consultation (and plan to write to my MP). It seems like it would be both quick and incredibly useful, but I haven't seen anyone else suggest that as the legal mechanism. Do you have a view on whether that could happen?
So the NPPF changes that are currently being consulted on does mention building on land near train stations that's currently green belt. However the issue is that this is only mentioned as a low priority. To build near stations on the green belt, local authorities are meant to first build on any brownfield land, then build on any 'previously developed' green belt land, then they can consider building around stations in the green belt. In my response to the consultation I'm suggesting that they prioritise well-connected green belt land over previously developed land, as the status of whether land was previously developed doesn't have any relation to how economically beneficial it is to build on.
So I guess to answer your question, I think that the NPPF, if worded well, could be the mechanism to make it much easier to build on green belt land near stations, although I'm not optimistic that the current changes being consulted on go far enough.